Remember me
▼ Content

Global warming is not anthropogenic



Page 2 of 4<1234>
01-08-2020 15:40
Pete Rogers
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
IBdaMann mentions 2 problems so I will see if I can put his mind at rest.

1) Certainly the troposphere is part of the earth, but it is a gaseous part, not solid or liquid. As you should know from what I have submitted I do not think the GE has any effect on temperature though it is true to say that the frequencies of IR to which GE's are not transparent are all dealt with close to the surface. This is because - despite the small proportion of the atmosphere represented by GG's - the sheer numbers of molecules encountered on any path will ensure that some will be the of the GG to which it is opaque. It may be interesting to note that the frequencies that can be absorbed by GG's are already saturated - meaning completely absorbed or reflected back, so any increases in GG's would mean that the absorption/reflection would be completed even closer to the surface, not that a greater volume be absorbed. This is another reason why increased GG's would not cause warming. I am unaware that any parties are claiming that the GE has a cooling effect - please clarify. The gravitational warming (the compression is in the form of auto-compression - meaning due to its own weight - therefore caused by gravity) causes greatest enhancement at the base, but to a lesser degree it warms everywhere the pressure exceeds 10kPa and some places it doesn't. The heat is transferred around the atmosphere by conduction and convection and the Gravitational Enhancement conducts back to warm the Hydrosphere and Lithosphere through contact.

2) There are no energy form changes. The heat energy is enhanced within a compressed medium by being concentrated. It means that the additional energy is from negative work performed by the force of gravity.

I agree heat is flow. We have a continual inflow of solar energy to first warm the Lithosphere and Hydrosphere being in contact with the base of the atmosphere into which the warmth is conducted with resultant temperature enhancement caused by the permanently acting force of gravity causing concentration of the heat-energy. The enhanced temperature means heat then flows back to the surface in accordance with the Second Law leading to an increase in both surface temperature and IR emissions. This leads to a higher equilibrium temperature sustained by continuous flows and the continuously action of gravity.

The false theory of the GE is - unambiguously - that IR is intercepted by GGs and that this interception causes warming of the planet. Please advise if you still find this ambiguous and in what particulars.

We are in agreement again that the IPCC claims are no more sensible than the Pope's. What makes you think I thought otherwise?

"Pete Rogers wrote: ... this is because at low compression there would be less heat energy per Cubic Metre so gravity enhances the temperature of the troposphere"

'Only upon initial compression ... then it cools to its original temperature. You never fail to omit this key point. It's like you are hoping it will go away.

Your argument is dismissed. Get with the program.'

With great respect you appear to have forgotten that this is a continuous process of compression with continuous energy inflow. You would either have to stop the inflow or reduce gravity to obtain cooling and since neither can be the case cooling eventually occurs in the form of increased IR emissions from the surface leading to equilibrium at the enhanced temperature.

The base of the atmosphere is therefore always at the same temperature as the surface with which it is in contact. What you are talking about is the ensuing process of convection caused by the combined direct heat and its gravitational enhancement attained at the surface.

Indeed anything for which there is no empirical evidence; be it peanut butter v Gremlins or GE v warming: is to be dismissed. What made you think I thought otherwise, I am puzzled about that? IPCC tried to use the circumstantial evidence - or so they though it - that there could be no other explanation for the ATE to prove the thermal potency of the GE. If they were right that there could be no other explanation then the position is not unreasonable, but of course there is actually this much better explanation proving that the GE does not cause warming.

Unless you can show that the Earth would be at the same temperature without the presence of the atmosphere Gravity should easily be seen as the answer.
01-08-2020 17:14
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2209)
All matter is either a solid, liquid, or gas. The atmosphere certainly is part of the planet. Co2 only makes up approximately 0.04% of the atmosphere, a trace gas. This level changes quite a bit, as it's in high demand from the vegetation growing all over the planet. Water changes between the three states, mention, quite easily. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere can be as high as about 4%. There is a lot going on in the atmosphere, constantly in motion, constantly changing. It's just not possible to stop everything, to measure all the different aspects. Nor do we have the the tools to do the job instantaneously, on a global scale. We can fill a container full of a gas, or mixture of gasses, and run tests in a lab. but it will never come close to representing what's going on outside the lab.

Only one half this huge planet, is exposed to the sun's energy at any time, and the other half is releasing energy. There are many different elements involved in defining the rate at which the energy moves in and out of the system, and all constantly changing. We can measure temperature anywhere on earth, and we will seldom see the same temperature for very long, night or day. We can log temperature readings at regular intervals every day, and compare each 24 hour period. They will never match, any other day. The whole premise of global warming is very weak, and speculations, based on incomplete and selective data.

One element, that has change considerably this year, is the amount of dust blowing off the Savannah desert. It's something that happens all the time, but it's been noteworthy this year, and had some effect on the weather, not to mention the color of sunrise and sunsets. Natural particulates in the atmosphere can rise suddenly, and unpredictably, like volcanoes, or massive wild fires. The massive Savannah dust clouds have been going on over a month now. I only know the impact locally, and haven't looked into the global impact, or how long it's expected to last.
01-08-2020 21:09
Pete Rogers
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
First IBdaMann was correct to say that UV is absorbed by the atmosphere - "All Hail" - and I was wrong to say otherwise so "Fie upon me".
You are not forgiven. You do it again in this post.
Pete Rogers. Really? Where?
Pete Rogers wrote:
Talking about where we live in the atmosphere I should have used the correct term – Troposphere - so please accept my apologies.

Makes no difference.
Pete Rogers. Explanation doesn't seem to be your thing, whereas science depends upon it. Do you know that?
Pete Rogers wrote:
UV is not absorbed by tropospheric gases
Yes it is.
Pete Rogers. All UV that is capable of absorption by gas is removed in the upper atmosphere, so it doesn't reach the Troposphere, therefore only UV to which gases are transparent reach it, thus passing through without effect. Here is a diagram with explanation, therefore an attempt at science
https://whyclimatechanges.com/HeatingAir.pdf
Naturally, as one following the scientific method I would be interested in your objections provided they come with cogent explanation, otherwise no meaning can be ascribed..

Pete Rogers wrote:
and being at above 10kPa in pressure the Troposphere maintains a temperature gradient: whereby the greater the pressure the greater the temperature, being greatest at the bottom for obvious reasons.
Static pressure does not increase temperature.
Pete Rogers. It most certainly does as part of a flow system, whereby the energy is continually compressed as it passes through giving temperature enhancement. The atmosphere has no surroundings into which it can conduct the heat, so only the Earth's surface is available.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The troposphere is heated from below by conduction through surface contact
This part is correct.
Pete Rogers. Thank you, so that means the UV passes through without effect you see.
Pete Rogers wrote:
and IPCC say also by the Greenhouse Effect:
being the alleged temperature enhancement arising from the interception of surface IR emissions by greenhouse gases (GG's).

Absorption of IR light emitted by the surface does not warm the Earth. You are denying the 1st law of thermodynamics. You can't create energy out of nothing.
Pete Rogers. Please look again and you should see that I am saying exactly that the GE does not have a warming effect
Pete Rogers wrote:
If you find that definition ambiguous please provide particulars to illustrate the claim.

You have to define 'global warming' before you can define 'greenhouse effect' which supposedly causes it.
Pete Rogers. Please see the previous answer from which I hope you can see I agree that the GE does not cause Global Warming.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Heat within the atmosphere cannot be conducted beyond its edge because there is only vacuum; wherefore it is adiabatic.
There is no 'edge' to the atmosphere. Adiabatic cooling has nothing to do with warming the Earth.
Pete Rogers. We are surrounded by vacuum, so the edge is where that begins and no heat can be conducted into it. Compression causes increase in heat energy per unit volume in order to conserving the total heat energy in the smaller gas body. This ensures temperature increase whereby it must then flow back to the Earth's Surface in line with the Second Law. This should show you that; to the contrary: it has everything to do with the Atmosphere warming the Earth
Pete Rogers wrote:
The Greenhouse Effect (GE) is a misnomer because as James__ avers an actual greenhouse works by trapping warm air so to prevent convection which is a very different matter to deflecting IR - there is no comparison between these processes so the term is deceptive.
Greenhouses do not prevent or reduce conductive heat.
Pete Rogers. You are right, what they prevent is prevent convection, and just like leaving your car windows closed on a sunny day it makes things very hot.
Pete Rogers wrote:
There is no empirical evidence to show that the GE results in any warming but IPCC say there can be no other explanation for the fact that the Earth would be cooler if it had no atmosphere.

Define 'global warming'. The temperature of Earth is unknown.
Pete Rogers. I can understand you saying that, because it used to be a rough estimate at best - though when there was consistency you could at least tell how much change there was and in which direction, but political interference with the data and manipulation of reading stations and the way they are clustered means you have a very good point, however the use of satellite readings has gone a long way to restoring confidence. I think the current independent calculations are ok.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If they were right they would have a point, but there is another explanation.
According to the Laws of Fluid Dynamics (Part of Thermodynamics)

Fluid dynamics is not part of thermodynamics. There is no explanation needed. Define 'global warming'.
Pete Rogers. It's a bit of a fine point, but Fluid Dynamics is at least related in important ways. Global warming is the extent to which the temperature has risen over an agreed time if indeed it has. In the current case the establishment forces it upon the public that the planet has warmed since the early 19th Century and that we should be very concerned, whereas the Earth is Cooler than in the Mediaeval Warm Period, which was cooler than the Roman Warm period, which was cooler than the Minoan Period which was cooler than Holocene Maximum 7,500 years ago, which means global cooling has been the case in the longer term.
Pete Rogers wrote:
as applied to gas bodies at more than 10kPa, when heat energy enters a compressed medium from a non-compressed medium the temperature rises in accordance with the thermal gradient, this is because at low compression there would be less heat energy per Cubic Metre so gravity enhances the temperature of the troposphere – most notably at its base - which means the temperature is then above that of the surface so as compelled by the Second Law of Thermodynamics heat flows from the warmer atmosphere to the less warm Earth's surface.
The atmosphere is not warmer than the surface of Earth. The only exception is localized places where the atmosphere was warmed by some hotter region, and then flows over a colder region. Globally, the atmosphere is not hotter than the surface. You are ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics now.
Pete Rogers. Excuse me for suggesting that you may have misunderstood me -and perhaps it's that I wasn't clear about this - but the system simply comes into equilibrium at a higher temperature because of the thermal enhancement caused by gravity so that the temperature is then the same for both by the surface of the Earth and the base of the atmosphere
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann seemed to think this was an EGREGIOUS violation of Thermodynamics when it is a rigorous adherence to it,
IBdaMann is correct. You are making egregious violations of thermodynamics.
Pete Rogers. Really, then in what particulars please? Unless explained there is no value in statements of this type, whereas I am very willing to look at scientific explanations, so please oblige.
Pete Rogers wrote:
but perhaps he can explain I would be very interested to hear it.
He already has. So have I. Repetitious Question Already Answered (RQAA).
Pete Rogers. Unfortunately there were just statements without explanation so please advise. I wouldn't have raised the question again if it had been explained.
Pete Rogers wrote:
In summary the atmosphere warms the earth due to the Laws of Fluid Dynamics
Nope. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again, as well as fluid dynamics and the ideal gas law. Mantras 20a1...20n...
Pete Rogers. No please look again, you should find that you have missed out the effect of gravity from your considerations and also that Fluid dynamics tells us that compression increases temperature, please confirm.
Pete Rogers wrote:
whereby gravitational compression causes thermal enhancement
There is no such thing as 'gravitational compression' in the atmosphere. There is no such thing as 'thermal enhancement'. Buzzword fallacies.
Pete Rogers. These are statements without explanation again. The atmosphere is compressed by its own weight, that is why it is denser at the base than elsewhere, gravity causes this weight, so gravity causes the compression
- hence the term "gravitational compression" is correct and not a "Buzzword". That compression has no alternative but to increase the temperature of an adiabatic gas means it is "thermally enhanced", so no "Buzzword there either.
The surface is not cooler than the atmosphere. You are ignoring both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics as well as the ideal gas law.
Pete Rogers. You are right because the process terminates with the attainment of the equilibrium temperature, which applies to both.
Pete Rogers wrote:
causing warming which leads to an increase in IR emissions bringing the system back into equilibrium at an increased temperature.

There is no sequence. All of these laws operate all the time. None of them are suspended for even a moment.
Pete Rogers. That is essentially true, its just that these effects -whilst occurring in a feedback series - long ago reached equilibrium, which is what we see.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Accordingly there is no warming from the GE - nor therefore from our CO2.
This part is correct.
Pete Rogers wrote:
It's all correct physics
No, it isn't. You are still denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law.
Pete Rogers. Hopefully I have explained this already. The heat energy is conserved, but gravity is added leading to temperature enhancement as expected by the Ideal Gas Law, this enhancement flows back to the surface in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics thus reaching a new equilibrium.
Pete Rogers wrote:
and should be easy to follow for anyone familiar with the scientific method
Science isn't a 'method' or a 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.[/quote]
Pete Rogers. Not quite. When a theory is falsified it is rejected as untrue and Science moves on to replacement theories that are resistant to falsification. That is the case here. Science does not proceed without the correct methods and procedures to ensure that findings are verifiable. Logical reasoning applied to evidence is the main thrust.
01-08-2020 22:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7324)
HarveyH55 wrote: All matter is either a solid, liquid, or gas.

Usually. Just as a technicality, there are two other states:

1. Matter becomes plasma at extremely high temperatures.

2. Matter that enters a black hole changes to some unknown state about which we know nothing. No scientific method battery has ever been conducted on matter inside a black hole but theoretically it can't be just plasma, solid, liquid or a gas ... and probably is no longer of the same molecular/atomic structure that it was prior to entering. My guess is that a black hole is one huge atom of immesurable atomic mass, i.e. it would be its own element on the periodic table.

HarveyH55 wrote:The atmosphere certainly is part of the planet. Co2 only makes up approximately 0.04% of the atmosphere, a trace gas.

Harvey, I am with you on this point. Just as a minor triviality, the IBDaCO2Percentage that I use is < 0.03% (< 25% less) because I firmly believe that measurements of 400 ppm outdoors can only be reached by taking measurements around the mouth of a volcano and then fudging the numbers upwards when no one is looking.

Caveat: that is just my IBDaBelief. I don't have any data to support my claim.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-08-2020 23:27
James___
★★★★★
(2996)
So why is Peter Rogers replying as ITN would? Using a false ID to establish credibility proves fraud.
02-08-2020 00:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann mentions 2 problems so I will see if I can put his mind at rest.

1) Certainly the troposphere is part of the earth, but it is a gaseous part, not solid or liquid. As you should know from what I have submitted I do not think the GE has any effect on temperature though it is true to say that the frequencies of IR to which GE's are not transparent are all dealt with close to the surface. This is because - despite the small proportion of the atmosphere represented by GG's - the sheer numbers of molecules encountered on any path will ensure that some will be the of the GG to which it is opaque. It may be interesting to note that the frequencies that can be absorbed by GG's are already saturated - meaning completely absorbed or reflected back,

There is no such thing as 'saturated' absorption. Absorption is not reflection. Mantras 10...20b3...20b2...20b5...20q1...20f...20g...20e3...
Pete Rogers wrote:
so any increases in GG's would mean that the absorption/reflection would be completed even closer to the surface, not that a greater volume be absorbed.

Absorption is not a volume. Absorption is not reflection. Mantra 10b.
Pete Rogers wrote:
This is another reason why increased GG's would not cause warming.

Define 'global warming'. Mantra 22a.
Pete Rogers wrote:
I am unaware that any parties are claiming that the GE has a cooling effect - please clarify.

Already explained to you. RQAA. Emitting light from a surface cools the surface. Mantra 29.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The gravitational warming (the compression is in the form of auto-compression - meaning due to its own weight - therefore caused by gravity) causes greatest enhancement at the base, but to a lesser degree it warms everywhere the pressure exceeds 10kPa and some places it doesn't.

There is no such thing as 'auto-cojmpression'. Buzzword fallacy. Gravity is not energy. It does not warm anything. You are denying the 1st law of thermodynamics again. Mantras 20a1...22...20e2...
Pete Rogers wrote:
The heat is transferred around the atmosphere by conduction and convection and the Gravitational Enhancement conducts back to warm the Hydrosphere and Lithosphere through contact.

There is no such thing as Gravitational Enhancement of temperature. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. Mantras 20a1...20e2...
Pete Rogers wrote:
2) There are no energy form changes. The heat energy is enhanced within a compressed medium by being concentrated.

Heat is not energy. Gravity is not energy. Mantras 10b...20a1...
Pete Rogers wrote:
It means that the additional energy is from negative work performed by the force of gravity.

Gravity is not energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Mantra 20a1.
Pete Rogers wrote:
I agree heat is flow.

No, you don't you keep changing the definition of heat. See The Manual. Mantras 10b.
Pete Rogers wrote:
We have a continual inflow of solar energy

Solar isn't an energy. Mantra 10b.
Pete Rogers wrote:
to first warm the Lithosphere and Hydrosphere being in contact with the base of the atmosphere into which the warmth is conducted with resultant temperature enhancement caused by the permanently acting force of gravity causing concentration of the heat-energy.

Not all light from the Sun is absorbed. Not all light absorbed from the Sun is converted into thermal energy. You are still trying to create energy out of nothing by 'enhancement'. Mantras 10b...20a1...20w6...20q1...20q2...20q5...20n...20g...20e2...20e3...20b3...20b1...
Pete Rogers wrote:
The enhanced temperature means heat then flows back to the surface in accordance with the Second Law leading to an increase in both surface temperature and IR emissions.

Temperature doesn't 'enhance'. Buzzword fallacy. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. Mantras 22...20a1.
Pete Rogers wrote:
This leads to a higher equilibrium temperature sustained by continuous flows and the continuously action of gravity.

There is no sequence. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Mantras 20b3...20a1...
Pete Rogers wrote:
The false theory of the GE is - unambiguously - that IR is intercepted by GGs and that this interception causes warming of the planet.

This is not a theory. It makes use of buzzwords. Define 'global warming'. Mantra 22a. You cannot create a theory using undefined words. In addition, a theory of science must be falsifiable. That means it must be possible to the theory itself using a test that is available, practical to conduct, specific, and produces a specific result, and that the test is a test of the theory itself. A theory, even a theory that isn't a theory of science must take the form of a valid argument. A void argument created by using meaningless buzzwords is not a valid argument.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Please advise if you still find this ambiguous and in what particulars.

Define 'global warming'. Mantra 20a. RQAA.
Pete Rogers wrote:
We are in agreement again that the IPCC claims are no more sensible than the Pope's. What makes you think I thought otherwise?

You make the same claim that there is 'global warming'. Define 'global warming'. Mantra 22a.
Pete Rogers wrote:
"Pete Rogers wrote: ... this is because at low compression there would be less heat energy per Cubic Metre so gravity enhances the temperature of the troposphere"

Heat is not energy. Heat is not temperature. Total thermal energy is not temperature. Mantras 10b...20a4.
Pete Rogers wrote:
'Only upon initial compression ... then it cools to its original temperature. You never fail to omit this key point. It's like you are hoping it will go away.

Your argument is dismissed. Get with the program.'

With great respect you appear to have forgotten that this is a continuous process of compression with continuous energy inflow.

No, you can't impose a sequence and then deny the sequence you imposed. There is no sequence. Mantra 16c.
Pete Rogers wrote:
You would either have to stop the inflow or reduce gravity to obtain cooling

WRONG. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Mantras 20b.20b3...
Pete Rogers wrote:
and since neither can be the case cooling eventually occurs in the form of increased IR emissions from the surface leading to equilibrium at the enhanced temperature.

There is no sequence. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Mantras 20b3...20a1...
Pete Rogers wrote:
The base of the atmosphere is therefore always at the same temperature as the surface with which it is in contact.

WRONG. Otherwise fog and clouds would never form. You are ignoring Kirchoff's law now, as well as heat by conduction and convection, and both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Mantras 20a5..10b...20a1...20a2...
Pete Rogers wrote:
What you are talking about is the ensuing process of convection caused by the combined direct heat

There is no such thing as 'direct heat'. There is just heat. Mantra 10b.
Pete Rogers wrote:
and its gravitational enhancement attained at the surface.

You can't create energy out of nothing. Gravity is not energy. Mantra 20a1.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Indeed anything for which there is no empirical evidence; be it peanut butter v Gremlins or GE v warming: is to be dismissed. What made you think I thought otherwise, I am puzzled about that?
You are still trying to claim there is 'global warming'. Define 'global warming'. Mantra22a.
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:
IPCC tried to use the circumstantial evidence - or so they though it - that there could be no other explanation for the ATE to prove the thermal potency of the GE.

Irrelevant.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If they were right that there could be no other explanation then the position is not unreasonable, but of course there is actually this much better explanation proving that the GE does not cause warming.

Define 'global warming'. Mantra 22a.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Unless you can show that the Earth would be at the same temperature without the presence of the atmosphere Gravity should easily be seen as the answer.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Mantra 38b. It is invalid to force someone to prove a negative, since that would result in a circular argument fallacy.

Like the old problem that the guilty must prove their innocence that the UK and the Salem witch trials were so good at. No one is required to prove a negative.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
02-08-2020 00:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
James___ wrote:
So why is Peter Rogers replying as ITN would? Using a false ID to establish credibility proves fraud.


YALSA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
02-08-2020 00:13
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(221)
Into the Night wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
So why did you brought it up in the Venus thread?

I didn't.


Both you and IbdaMann brought it up several times in Venus thread. It confused the hell out of me why did you even mentioned it if it has no effect on the average temperature. All I could think of was that maybe the gravitational compression has some kind of "heat pump" effect that rises tempreature in some areas at the expense of cooling other areas( overall net effect would be zero). Otherwise I can not understand why mention it.
02-08-2020 00:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7324)
Xadoman wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
So why did you brought it up in the Venus thread?

I didn't.


Both you and IbdaMann brought it up several times in Venus thread. It confused the hell out of me why did you even mentioned it if it has no effect on the average temperature. All I could think of was that maybe the gravitational compression has some kind of "heat pump" effect that rises tempreature in some areas at the expense of cooling other areas( overall net effect would be zero). Otherwise I can not understand why mention it.

I'm the guilty party for sowing the confusion. I will explain.

Gravity is a force, not energy, i.e. gravity = force

Work, on the other hand, *is* energy and work is a force over distance, i.e. force multimplied by distance = work which equals energy.

Ergo, the constant force of gravity (over the atmosphere) performs work that maintains the compression of the atmosphere (otherwise, without gravity there would be no atmospheric pressure as it floats away into space).

What effect does this work have. Yes it affects temperatures. Which temperatures? All of them, but not by driving them upward, but rather by driving them closer to the planet's average temperature, i.e. temperatures that are below the earth's average temperature are increased while temperatures above the earth's average temperature are decreased.

I previously used the analogy of a grill press on a steak but I should have also used the similar analogy of sandwiching a fish between two blocks of ice. During the daytime, the gravitational force on the cooler atmosphere has the net effect of more greatly cooling the warmer solid surface and conversely gives the warmer solid surface a more pronounced warming effect on the atmosphere. You will notice that our daytime solid surface and our daytime oceans never reach the temperatures of the daytime lunar surface because the moon does not have the earth's compressed atmosphere cooling its daytime surface.

Similarly, the earth's warmer nightime atmosphere has a more pronounced warming effect on the colder surface which is why the earth's nighttime surface never reaches the cold temperatures of the nightime lunar surface (caveat: the earth's relatively short 24-hour day cycle makes that possible).

Ergo, IBDaOfficialStatement is "the constant force of gravity over all of the atmosphere performs the work of compressing the atmosphere and thus of compressing temperatures towards the planet's average temperature.

Any questions?

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-08-2020 02:04
James___
★★★★★
(2996)
Xadoman wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
So why did you brought it up in the Venus thread?

I didn't.


Both you and IbdaMann brought it up several times in Venus thread. It confused the hell out of me why did you even mentioned it if it has no effect on the average temperature. All I could think of was that maybe the gravitational compression has some kind of "heat pump" effect that rises tempreature in some areas at the expense of cooling other areas( overall net effect would be zero). Otherwise I can not understand why mention it.



That's what they do. I've calculated the number of molecules/mol using the Boltzmann Ideal Gas Law. Basically, because of atmospheric pressure, the atmosphere on Venus should be close to a liquid state. And this is where we'd get into Einstein's theory of relativity. That would probably account for why Venus is so warm.
02-08-2020 04:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7324)
Pete Rogers wrote: 1) Certainly the troposphere is part of the earth, but it is a gaseous part, not solid or liquid.

What you don't seem to understand is that any and all discussion of the atmosphere is a waste of time because nothing about it can change the overarching situation of the earth as a whole. If physics tells us that earth's average temperature is a function of solar output and earth's distance from the sun, you don't somehow get a different result by simply discussing a part of the earth, e.g. the atmosphere.

So, if you are discussing the atmosphere and you are somehow led to a conclusion that differs from what physics tells you, that should be your clue that you are making an egregious error.

Pete Rogers wrote: As you should know from what I have submitted I do not think the GE has any effect on temperature

... and without missing a beat you begin discussing this ATE crap which is the same thing.

There is no Greenhouse Effect.
There is no Atmospehric Temperature Enhancement.

The average global temperature does not change due to atmospheric changes.

Pete Rogers wrote: though it is true to say that the frequencies of IR to which GE's are not transparent are all dealt with close to the surface.

"dealt with"? Don't be so technical.

Pete Rogers wrote: This is another reason why increased GG's would not cause warming.

Aside from there being no such thing as a "greenhouse gas" ... there is only one reason, not multiple reasons, why changes in atmospheric composition cannot result in a change in a planet's average temperature, i.e. the first law of thermodynamics. And like I mentioned above, it doesn't matter how much you drill down into the weeds about the details of the atmosphere, you can't somehow arrive at some sort of differing result.

[OK, OK, ... you could consider Stefan-Boltzmann as a second, corroborating reason why changes in atmospheric composition don't affect a planet's average temperature by noting the lack of any "atmospheric composition" component]

Pete Rogers wrote:I am unaware that any parties are claiming that the GE has a cooling effect - please clarify.

There's no Greenhouse Effect. Can I be any clearer?

Pete Rogers wrote: The gravitational warming (the compression is in the form of auto-compression - meaning due to its own weight - therefore caused by gravity) causes greatest enhancement at the base, but to a lesser degree it warms everywhere the pressure exceeds 10kPa and some places it doesn't. The heat is transferred around the atmosphere by conduction and convection and the Gravitational Enhancement conducts back to warm the Hydrosphere and Lithosphere through contact.

All of this is hogwash.

Pete Rogers wrote: 2) There are no energy form changes.

Energy is constantly changing form. To claim there are no energy form changes is beyond absurd.

Pete Rogers wrote: The heat energy is enhanced

There's no such thing as "heat energy."
There is no such thing as "enhancing" energy.

Pete Rogers wrote: It means that the additional energy is from negative work performed by the force of gravity.

There's no such thing as "negative work" unless you are mathematically subtracting some work from some other work.

Pete Rogers wrote: I agree heat is flow.

... a flow of thermal energy. Other flows are not heat.

Pete Rogers wrote: We have a continual inflow of solar energy to first warm the Lithosphere and Hydrosphere being in contact with the base of the atmosphere into which the warmth is conducted with resultant temperature enhancement caused by the permanently acting force of gravity causing concentration of the heat-energy. The enhanced temperature means heat then flows back to the surface in accordance with the Second Law leading to an increase in both surface temperature and IR emissions. This leads to a higher equilibrium temperature sustained by continuous flows and the continuously action of gravity.

In this paragraph you violate Stefan-Boltzmann. You claim that the planet results in a higher average temperature despite no change in absorbed thermal radiation from the sun.

It's just false.

Pete Rogers wrote: We are in agreement again that the IPCC claims are no more sensible than the Pope's. What makes you think I thought otherwise?

Your assertion that the atmosphere increases a planet's average temperature rather than compress the span of temperatures closer together is what is wrong.

Pete Rogers wrote:With great respect you appear to have forgotten that this is a continuous process of compression with continuous energy inflow.

I have not forgotten. The temperature increases only upon initial compression but then cools to the previous ambient temperature. This is per the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Do you know how refrigeration works? It wouldn't if reality were as you describe it. To move thermal energy from A to B a fluid in A is moved to B where it is compressed and its temperature spikes and is allowed to cool, transferring its thermal energy into B, where that same fluid is then moved back to A where it is allowed to expand greatly reducing its temperature, causing thermal energy from A to flow into the fluid to warm it. Repeat.

Your misunderstanding holds that when the refrigerant is compressed that it never cools. This is obviously erroneous.

Pete Rogers wrote:Indeed anything for which there is no empirical evidence; be it peanut butter v Gremlins or GE v warming: is to be dismissed.

... in science. There are no restrictions as to what can be accepted in religion.

Pete Rogers wrote: What made you think I thought otherwise, I am puzzled about that?

... because you state that anything without empirical evidence is to be dismissed and without missing a beat you assume a nonexistent "ATE." Watch ...

Pete Rogers wrote:... that there could be no other explanation for the ATE ...

Your use of the word "other" implies that you have what you believe is an explanation for the "ATE" ... which means you believe that it is real ... that makes it a faith-based belief, not unlike any other religious belief. Your "ATE" is not to be found in science. I'm sorry.

Whereas warmizombies believe that the nonexistent Greenhouse Effect causes Global Warming, your faith believes that Global Warming is instead caused by the nonexistent Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement.

You have merely renamed "Greenhouse Effect" to "Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement." Neither are real ergo it really doesn't really matter if there happen to be any differences in their details.

Pete Rogers wrote: Unless you can show that the Earth would be at the same temperature without the presence of the atmosphere

I'm going to throw it back at you. Unless you can show that the earth would be a different average temperature without an atmosphere, your ATE is summarily dismissed.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-08-2020 10:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
Xadoman wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Xadoman wrote:
So why did you brought it up in the Venus thread?

I didn't.


Both you and IbdaMann brought it up several times in Venus thread. It confused the hell out of me why did you even mentioned it if it has no effect on the average temperature.
Xadoman wrote:
All I could think of was that maybe the gravitational compression has some kind of "heat pump" effect that rises tempreature in some areas at the expense of cooling other areas( overall net effect would be zero). Otherwise I can not understand why mention it.

Neither of us brought it up. Tmiddles did by misusing it in an effort to dodge his problems with his 'net heat' bullshit.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
02-08-2020 10:20
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3324)
Pete Rogers wrote:...This is pretty simple stuff so the objections are rather strange...
You're making a real argument against AGW and ITN and IBD are in the business of derailing debate. There is an inherent conflict in these two approaches. You'll find a theme with them and it's that "nothing can be known"

Your argument boils down to atmospheric pressure can be shown to be the cause of the higher mean temperature of planets (at ground level). A very interesting argument I've been hoping to discuss here. I shared it:
Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?
tmiddles wrote:..an argument here against ...greenhouse gases increase temperature:
there is no greenhouse effect at all, and you can prove it for yourself....compare the same atmospheric pressures...the surface of earth with an altitude above the surface of Venus, ...the temperature is what you would expect to find [with CO2 playing no GHG role]

Here it is again: "near-surface temperature is actually caused by adiabatic auto-compression." by Robert Holmes
also here: Steven Goddard ... it is pressure, not the greenhouse effect that keeps Venus hot.
Another:
Nikolov and Zeller: surface temperature...derived from ...Ideal Gas Law...without ANY GHG "forcing," found listed here
But it seems like there are a solid dozen out there at least. I couldn't find any solid debating on any of them and no one here has ever been interested. I'm very interested.

Pete Rogers wrote:....We have a continual inflow of solar energy to first warm the Lithosphere and Hydrosphere being in contact with the base of the atmosphere into which the warmth is conducted...
You seem to describe the atmosphere as entirely transmitting all solar radiance directly to the ground. Of course the atmosphere is diffusing/scattering "mellowing" the incoming solar radiance. How can it do that without absorbing some of it directly? My understanding (here) is that the popular model has 14% absorbed directly before it reaches the surface. On Venus it's about 95% that is absorbed before it reaches the surface.

If you do believe that the ground/water is absorbing solar radiance exclusively, and then transmitting thermal energy to the atmosphere only through conduction, then I'd have to agree with ITN's example:
Into the Night wrote:...a compressed gas cylinder...is the same as the room temperature.
If thermal energy is transmitted by conduction to a compressed gas it would simply rise up to that temperature at most. The effect of gravity is already applied so how is it different than a pressurized gas in a container?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
02-08-2020 10:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
tmiddles wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:...This is pretty simple stuff so the objections are rather strange...
You're making a real argument against AGW

Lie. He is arguing FOR 'global warming', just as you are. Neither of you have defined it. Mantra 22a.
tmiddles wrote:
and ITN and IBD are in the business of derailing debate.

What debate? Mantras 30...22...
tmiddles wrote:
There is an inherent conflict in these two approaches. You'll find a theme with them and it's that "nothing can be known"

Lie. Mantra 5.
tmiddles wrote:
Your argument boils down to atmospheric pressure can be shown to be the cause of the higher mean temperature of planets (at ground level).

Nope. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Mantra 20a1.
tmiddles wrote:
A very interesting argument I've been hoping to discuss here. I shared it:
Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?

Mantra 15a...15b...
tmiddles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:..an argument here against ...greenhouse gases increase temperature:
there is no greenhouse effect at all, and you can prove it for yourself....compare the same atmospheric pressures...the surface of earth with an altitude above the surface of Venus, ...the temperature is what you would expect to find [with CO2 playing no GHG role]

Here it is again: "near-surface temperature is actually caused by adiabatic auto-compression."by Robert Holmes
also here: Steven Goddard ... it is pressure, not the greenhouse effect that keeps Venus hot.
Another:
Nikolov and Zeller: surface temperature...derived from ...Ideal Gas Law...without ANY GHG "forcing," found listed here
But it seems like there are a solid dozen out there at least. I couldn't find any solid debating on any of them and no one here has ever been interested. I'm very interested.

What debate? Mantra 22...4a...4b...37d...20n...
tmiddles wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:....We have a continual inflow of solar energy to first warm the Lithosphere and Hydrosphere being in contact with the base of the atmosphere into which the warmth is conducted...
You seem to describe the atmosphere as entirely transmitting all solar radiance directly to the ground. Of course the atmosphere is diffusing/scattering "mellowing" the incoming solar radiance. How can it do that without absorbing some of it directly? My understanding (here) is that the popular model has 14% absorbed directly before it reaches the surface. On Venus it's about 95% that is absorbed before it reaches the surface.

Random numbers. It is not possible to measure this on a global scale. Mantras 25g...31...
tmiddles wrote:
If you do believe that the ground/water is absorbing solar radiance exclusively, and then transmitting thermal energy to the atmosphere only through conduction, then I'd have to agree with ITN's example:
Into the Night wrote:...a compressed gas cylinder...is the same as the room temperature.
If thermal energy is transmitted by conduction to a compressed gas it would simply rise up to that temperature at most. The effect of gravity is already applied so how is it different than a pressurized gas in a container?

Not a belief. Mantras 20b5...20q1...20q2...31... Otherwise correct.

No argument presented. RQAA. Spam. Denial of science. Denial of math. Bulverism. False authorities.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
03-08-2020 14:48
Pete Rogers
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
Throwing accusations around is not science so until he calms down and provides cogency there is no point in ITN involvement here for lack of illumination? IBdaMann does show his cards from time to time allowing discussion, so I appreciate that, though he doesn't always wish to connect with the meanings coming back at him and when that happens he drops down to ITN level instead. For anyone to make progress to a greater state of understanding - if there be one possible - from a lesser (the point of Scientific Enquiry) it is necessary that matters be approached with both an open mind and impartiality - as though one were a kind of juror above all despite having one's own views - because only then can we be sure that the same standards get applied to all contesting cases. If this is not done - to continue the courtroom analogy - you end up with nothing but Advocates and counter Advocates and unlike the impartiality that allows the Juror to detect the better argument from its emergent merits the Advocate is obliged to be partisan whatever the demerit of his position as he is aggrandised by victory and humiliated by defeat, so whether he is right or wrong is immaterial, that's why we must leave the verdict to the juror minded.
Robert Holmes, together with Nikolov and Zeller are the real gateway to the truth here, but they inadvertently walked past the simplest form of what they were showing; after all they were looking at an epic and therefore a climactic outcome not just the raspberry: and that raspberry is that Gravity explains the ATE so - ipso facto - the GE has no thermal consequence and neither do we.

tmiddles wrote "You seem to describe the atmosphere as entirely transmitting all solar radiance directly to the ground. Of course the atmosphere is diffusing/scattering "mellowing" the incoming solar radiance. How can it do that without absorbing some of it directly? My understanding (here) is that the popular model has 14% absorbed directly before it reaches the surface. On Venus it's about 95% that is absorbed before it reaches the surface"

You are right, but the point is different, it is that all those frequencies of UV that can be absorbed by atmospheric gases are absorbed before they reach the Troposphere. The Troposphere is of course the only part of the Atmosphere capable of maintaining a thermal gradient - therefore obeying the Molar Mass version of the Ideal Gas Law - and it is heated entirely by conduction from the surface because it is transparent to all UV reaching it.

tmiddles wrote
"If you do believe that the ground/water is absorbing solar radiance exclusively, and then transmitting thermal energy to the atmosphere only through conduction, then I'd have to agree with ITN's example:
Into the Night wrote:...a compressed gas cylinder...is the same as the room temperature.
If thermal energy is transmitted by conduction to a compressed gas it would simply rise up to that temperature at most. The effect of gravity is already applied so how is it different than a pressurized gas in a container?"

The difference between the container and the atmosphere is that the container has surroundings into which heat flows away from it under the Second Law of Thermodynamics; thus reducing it to the ambient temperature: whereas the Atmosphere is bounded by vacuum, into which nothing can be conducted. The Atmosphere is therefore adiabatic and can only conduct higher temperatures back to Earth whereas the the container is anything but. Of course heat rises as you and ITN say - and cold falls - as part of the continuum, but convection is not a source of energy, only the Sun and Gravity (since the peculiar compressibility of gases has the effect of converting its force into negative work) are the sources effectively. QED?
03-08-2020 17:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7324)
Pete Rogers wrote: For anyone to make progress to a greater state of understanding - if there be one possible - from a lesser (the point of Scientific Enquiry) it is necessary that matters be approached with both an open mind and impartiality

I have bad news for you. The requirement for others to have a more "open mind" is only necessary for salesmen to make more sales and for preachers of a belief to make progress in gaining converts. The advancement of "scientific enquiry" however requires constant doubting and questioning.

Science = constant doubting and questioning
Religion = unquestioning faith, assuming certain clergy speak "truth."

Frankly, if you have problems with others expressing their doubts then you reveal your primary purpose of converting people to a particular belief and not one of pursuing "scientific enquiry."

I have explained my two major problems with your belief and you refuse to address them. Naturally, until you address my concerns, I'm not going to be onboard with your model. I don't mind reviewing:

1. There is no such thing as "Greenhouse Effect." Your model insists there is. You merely call it another name, i.e. "Atmospheric Temperature Enhancement." The concept of a Greenhouse Effect, or Atmospheric Temperature Enhancement, violates physics at a high level, specifically the first law of thermodynamics, by having a temperature increase without additional energy. Yes, you explain that compression of the atmosphere is work (which is energy) and initially caused an increase in temperature ... but you refuse to acknowledge that the atmosphere subsequently cooled since the formation of the planet. Ergo, to buy your argument, one must believe that a compressed gas never cools to ambient temperature ... and must believe that refrigerators don't work. Absurd.

2. At a lower level, your model egregiously violates the second law of thermodynamics. Your model insists that the cooler daytime atmosphere somehow warms the warmer daytime solid surface. This alone causes your model to be discarded. I realize that you believe that the daytime atmosphere is somehow warmer than the daytime solid surface, but you are mistaken.


Lastly, you seem to forget that he who makes the affirmative argument bears the full burden to support it. Instead, you seem to believe that those who hear your argument somehow have the obligation to accept it merely because you have presented it. No one needs to accept your argument, but if you want others to accept your argument, you most certainly need to address all doubts and concerns.

So in the interest of "scientific enquiry" please explain how you intend to address concerns 1 and 2 above, and how you intend to address Occam's Razor, i.e. show why any rational adult should believe there is an Atmospheric Temperature Enhancement, aka Greenhouse Effect, in the first place.

Pete Rogers wrote: Robert Holmes, together with Nikolov and Zeller are the real gateway to the truth here,

It is never a good sign when one refers to high priests of his faith as "the real gateway to the truth." You might as well rent a billboard emblazened with "THERE IS NO SCIENCE HERE." There is nothing TRUE in science and the scientific method never confirms anything as being TRUE. Science is simply a collection of models that have not yet been shown to be false. Religions, on the other hand, demand assumptions be accepted as TRUE without being questioned and without any support being provided.

Any scientist would be right to tell you to get back to him once you have a falsifiable model that does not violate physics.



... and one final thing. I have specifically asked twice and you REFUSE to explain what you mean by "negative work." One can only imagine that you are being intentionally dishonest. So please answer that question in your very next post, or expect to be presumed as being intentionally dishonest.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-08-2020 20:26
James___
★★★★★
(2996)
Pete Rogers wrote:
Throwing accusations around is not science



Before the term "greenhouse" was used, one scientist said that the Earth is warmer than it should be based on solar radiation. When he made this statement, he did not say CO2 but was merely stating his opinion.
Myself, I don't think anyone in here understands how the term "precession" is used in science. The actual application is "post-cession". An example is that the Earth starts a new orbit AFTER completing one complete revolution around the Sun.
If the Earth started a new orbital period before completing one rotation around the Sun, then the would be precession. And it's actually this understanding which could allow us to understand natural climate variation.
And since I do have a reputation to uphold, in here and other places am considered an a$$hole. An example is that I believe we need to understand natural climate variation so we can understand how feedback mechanisms can influence the climate.
And if we have no understanding of that, then how sure can we be when it comes to influencing the current climate? At the same time, I like breathing clean air and Star Trek.

Edited on 03-08-2020 20:26
03-08-2020 23:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
Pete Rogers wrote:
Throwing accusations around is not science so until he calms down and provides cogency there is no point in ITN involvement here for lack of illumination?
I have already shown you the theories of science you are denying. I have already shown you the mathematics you are denying. It is YOU that is rejecting science and mathematics. Inversion fallacy. Mantra 17.
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann does show his cards from time to time allowing discussion, so I appreciate that, though he doesn't always wish to connect with the meanings coming back at him and when that happens he drops down to ITN level instead.

He has also already shown you the science you are denying. He has also already shown you the mathematics you are denying. Mantra 17.
Pete Rogers wrote:
For anyone to make progress to a greater state of understanding
You refuse a greater state of understanding. Religion is not science. Mantra 32.
Pete Rogers wrote:
- if there be one possible
Not until you drop your religion and open your mind enough to learn the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and statistical and probability mathematics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
- from a lesser (the point of Scientific Enquiry)
Science isn't an 'enquiry'. It is a set of falsifiable theories. Mantra 10.
Pete Rogers wrote:
it is necessary that matters be approached with both an open mind and impartiality
You have closed your mind. You are not impartial. You are preaching a religion. Mantra 32.
Pete Rogers wrote:
- as though one were a kind of juror above all despite having one's own views

False analogy. Science does not use consensus, and is not a courtroom proceeding. Mantra 32.
Pete Rogers wrote:
- because only then can we be sure that the same standards get applied to all contesting cases.
You have not presented anything to falsify the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You only need one contesting bit of convincing evidence. You have not provided any.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If this is not done - to continue the courtroom analogy - you end up with nothing but Advocates and counter Advocates and unlike the impartiality that allows the Juror to detect the better argument from its emergent merits the Advocate is obliged to be partisan whatever the demerit of his position as he is aggrandised by victory and humiliated by defeat, so whether he is right or wrong is immaterial, that's why we must leave the verdict to the juror minded.

There is no jury. The is no 'elite' in science. Science does not use consensus. Mantra 37e.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Robert Holmes, together with Nikolov and Zeller are the real gateway to the truth here, but they inadvertently walked past the simplest form of what they were showing; after all they were looking at an epic and therefore a climactic outcome not just the raspberry: and that raspberry is that Gravity explains the ATE so - ipso facto - the GE has no thermal consequence and neither do we.

There is no such thing as ATE. Gravity is not energy. You are still denying the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
tmiddles wrote "You seem to describe the atmosphere as entirely transmitting all solar radiance directly to the ground. Of course the atmosphere is diffusing/scattering "mellowing" the incoming solar radiance. How can it do that without absorbing some of it directly?
Scattering is not absorption.
Pete Rogers wrote:
My understanding (here) is that the popular model has 14% absorbed directly before it reaches the surface.

Random number. Mantra 25g. It is not possible to globally measure the light reaching the surface of the Earth.
Pete Rogers wrote:
On Venus it's about 95% that is absorbed before it reaches the surface"

Random number Mantra 25g. It is not possible to global measure the light reaching the surface of Venus.
Pete Rogers wrote:
You are right, but the point is different, it is that all those frequencies of UV that can be absorbed by atmospheric gases are absorbed before they reach the Troposphere.

UV reaches the surface.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The Troposphere is of course the only part of the Atmosphere capable of maintaining a thermal gradient

WRONG. The entire atmosphere has a temperature gradient. Temperature is not total thermal energy. The entire atmosphere has a thermal energy gradient also.
Pete Rogers wrote:
- therefore obeying the Molar Mass version of the Ideal Gas Law

No such 'version'. Buzzword fallacy. The ideal gas law already uses moles. Mantra 22...20n.
Pete Rogers wrote:
- and it is heated entirely by conduction from the surface because it is transparent to all UV reaching it.

Non-sequitur fallacy. UV light has nothing to do with heat.
Pete Rogers wrote:
tmiddles wrote
"If you do believe that the ground/water is absorbing solar radiance exclusively, and then transmitting thermal energy to the atmosphere only through conduction, then I'd have to agree with ITN's example:
Into the Night wrote:...a compressed gas cylinder...is the same as the room temperature.
If thermal energy is transmitted by conduction to a compressed gas it would simply rise up to that temperature at most. The effect of gravity is already applied so how is it different than a pressurized gas in a container?"

The difference between the container and the atmosphere is that the container has surroundings into which heat flows away from it under the Second Law of Thermodynamics; thus reducing it to the ambient temperature: whereas the Atmosphere is bounded by vacuum, into which nothing can be conducted.

You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law now. Mantra 20b.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The Atmosphere is therefore adiabatic and can only conduct higher temperatures back to Earth whereas the the container is anything but.

The atmosphere is colder than the surface. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Mantra 20a2.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Of course heat rises as you and ITN say - and cold falls

Heat does not rise. Cold is the relative absence of thermal energy, not the opposite of heat. Mantra 10f.
Pete Rogers wrote:
- as part of the continuum, but convection is not a source of energy,

What 'continuum'? Buzzword fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
only the Sun and Gravity
Gravity is not energy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
(since the peculiar compressibility of gases has the effect of converting its force into negative work) are the sources effectively.
Gravity is not energy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
QED?

No QED. You have not demonstrated anything except your own illiteracy.

* You cannot create energy out of nothing.
* You cannot reduce entropy in any system.
* You cannot just discard the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
* You cannot equivocate light with temperature. Light has no temperature.

No argument presented. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics. Equating religion with science.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
04-08-2020 09:55
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3324)
Pete Rogers wrote:...all those frequencies of UV that can be absorbed by atmospheric gases are absorbed before they reach the Troposphere. The Troposphere ...is heated entirely by conduction from the surface because it is transparent to all UV reaching it.
That seems to describe the entire radiance from the Sun as being UV. Here:

it shows, in yellow, the atmospheric absorption and plenty of it is in the infrared. The divots left by H2O and CO2 absorption are visible. So this is absorption, in the Troposphere of inbound Solar radiance is it not?
If so then I would think "heated entirely by conduction from the surface" is not the case.

Pete Rogers wrote:...the Atmosphere is bounded by vacuum,...is therefore adiabatic
Radiant heat is emitted into space. All of the planets reach thermal equilibrium with the sun by losing energy to space by radiance. On Venus this excludes the surface as an emitter to space and on Earth only a fraction of the ground/water level's radiance makes it directly to space. So the gas atmosphere radiates out into space. I don't see how it's different than the gas cylinder. Also you seemed to describe the pressurized gas cylinder as having energy it needed to lose. It didn't. It was at room temperature already, or maybe even colder. If dry ice is in a sealed tube and warms to room temperature the pressure goes way up but not the temperature.

Pete Rogers wrote:...only the Sun and Gravity...are the sources [of energy]
I'm sort of thinking of Gravity as a rubber band in this. The Sun's energy can be transferred to gravity, just as you'd stretch out a rubber band. I really don't understand at this point though how this all works. It's very interesting though.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
04-08-2020 10:42
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(467)
ITN wrote Heat does not rise. Cold is the relative absence of thermal energy, not the opposite of heat. Mantra 10f.

Say what now.Heat rises brother.Please explain mantra boy
04-08-2020 13:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
duncan61 wrote:
ITN wrote Heat does not rise. Cold is the relative absence of thermal energy, not the opposite of heat. Mantra 10f.

Say what now.
Just what I said.
duncan61 wrote:
Heat rises brother.
Nope. Heat does not rise. Heat does not fall. Heat does not move. Heat is not mass. Heat is not energy. You are conflating rising hot air with 'rising heat'. Rising hot air is convective heat. Heat itself does not rise, the air does.
duncan61 wrote:
Please explain mantra boy

You can see a list of the mantras and their meanings here.

Mantra 10b is the attempted redefinition of 'heat' or 'temperature'. It should've been 10b, not 10f. Mantra 10f is the attempted buzzword use of 'net heat' or 'net flow'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 04-08-2020 13:19
04-08-2020 15:20
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(467)
I fit coils in wood fires that are piped to the tank on the roof that is part of the solar hot water unit.I will try to get the terminology correct.The fire is lit then heat is generated that heats the water in the pipe which at a certain temperature will start to rise and push the cold water around.The pipes are in an insulated loop so it keeps going round and eventually displaces all the cold water in the tank with hot water.It keeps circling and gaining more temperature.The pipe going from the top of the fire to the top of the tank is the flow and the pipe from the bottom of the fire and the bottom of the solar unit is the return.Old solars we used to connect direct in to the pipes on the panel and fit a PRV and tall overflow pipe as the fire is considered a uncontrolled heat source.Modern solar have remote panels with glycol in the panels and a heat exchanger in the tank so it can be run on mains pressure.The remote heat source is piped in to the panel system and a small stainless cistern is fitted on top of the tank so the glycol to the fire is fed of a low pressure system that is open to atmosphere.If you fit the factory wet back and have the solar unit directly above it works very well.I am sure this is called convection if there is the slightest dip in the flow pipe it will not work.The return pipe can be a bit out but it all works very well if the pipes are vertical
04-08-2020 15:34
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(467)
I am not getting in a pissing contest I am just going like I always do of the reality that I know and that is if you heat water or air it rises.I have my own theory that there is no such thing as wind and instead the hot air rises as the day gets warmer and sucks cold air of the ocean which is why where I live in summer we get easterlies in the mornings that fade of about 1100 am then it is still for an hour then the southerly howls in.I get your definition of heat its like a bag of Kilograms or people think octane is a magic juice that makes your car go fast when it is a measurement.Dont yell at me or I will start to cry
04-08-2020 16:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7324)
duncan61 wrote:
ITN wrote Heat does not rise.
Say what now.Heat rises brother.Please explain mantra boy

Whenever anyone says "Heat rises" I ask him to demonstrate it by taking a searing hot frying pan and setting it on top of his head. Since heat rises, this shouldn't be a problem, yes?

Heat is not thermal energy. Heat is a flow of thermal energy, from some matter to other matter, regardless of direction. Current is neither water nor electrons but is a flow of water or electrons.

You say warm air rises, however the truth is that lighter air rises and heavier air sinks. If you increase the temperature of some air, it expands and becomes lighter, and thus "rises" while the now colder air above it, at no fault of its own, becomes heavier relatively and "sinks."

All of this presumes gravity, of course, to pull the heavier air downward. This is why matches don't continue to burn in zero gravity. Oxygen is required for combustion and the normal process has fire consuming oxygen, heating the air around it which "rises" allowing more oxygen to "sink" in to take its place and the fire is able to keep burning. In a zero-gravity orbit, for example, a lit candle would quickly consume the oxygen around it and extinguish. There is no "rising" for the heated air to do and thus no oxygen coming in as replacement.

The "light air rises" falls under fluid dynamics and is addressed under the topic of buoyancy. It's the same reason a volleyball floats in water but an anchor sinks.

Oh, ... don't try putting a searing frying pan on your head. Leave that to the professionals.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-08-2020 22:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
duncan61 wrote:
I fit coils in wood fires that are piped to the tank on the roof that is part of the solar hot water unit.

An interesting device.
duncan61 wrote:
I will try to get the terminology correct.

I will help you.
duncan61 wrote:
The fire is lit then heat is generated

Heat is not generated. Thermal energy is generated by conversion of chemical energy to thermal energy by the fire. That's what fire is.
duncan61 wrote:
that heats the water in the pipe

Yes. The thermal energy heats the water in the pipe, which is colder than the fire.
duncan61 wrote:
which at a certain temperature

Again, a correct use. Temperature is average thermal energy (not the total). Temperature works in this case.
duncan61 wrote:
will start to rise and push the cold water around.

Temperature doesn't push anything. It is a measured value of average thermal energy. What is pushing the water around is convective heat.
duncan61 wrote:
The pipes are in an insulated loop so it keeps going round and eventually displaces all the cold water in the tank with hot water.

Yup. Same thing happens in the atmosphere, without the visible plumbing. Parcels of hot air rise, and colder air comes in from the sides to replace it. The rising bubble of hot air is convection, just like inside your pipe. Convective heat in the atmosphere disperses thermal energy over a wider area, cooling the parcel of air. Cold air descends (again convective heat) and is warmed again as it compresses (just not as warm as it was when it ascended). The cycle begins anew. Just like the inside of your piping.
duncan61 wrote:
It keeps circling and gaining more temperature.

More thermal energy, actually. Temperature is measuring the average thermal energy at a given point.
duncan61 wrote:
The pipe going from the top of the fire to the top of the tank is the flow and the pipe from the bottom of the fire and the bottom of the solar unit is the return.

They are both flow. Plug the return and the whole thing won't work. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It is not the energy itself. Temperature is the average thermal energy at a given point. It is not the total thermal energy.

Different materials have what is called a 'specific heat capacity', which is a rating on how much thermal energy it takes to heat a kilogram of the material a single degree (in kelvin). It is a rating on how much thermal energy it takes per second to heat or cool something.

Water has a specific heat capacity of 4.186, the highest of any common liquid. That's why we use it to cool engines. It takes a lot of energy to heat water, making it an ideal conveyor of engine heat to the atmosphere. It's just easier to use a large radiator then the tiny engine block to conduct heat to the atmosphere.

duncan61 wrote:
Old solars we used to connect direct in to the pipes on the panel and fit a PRV and tall overflow pipe as the fire is considered a uncontrolled heat source.

Fire can be controlled, by controlling the fuel, of course. In your case, yes. The fire is considered an uncontrolled heat source. Like a flow source in a river. Heat is flow. Like the current in a river. It is not the thermal energy itself, just as the current in a river is not the water itself.
duncan61 wrote:
Modern solar have remote panels with glycol in the panels and a heat exchanger in the tank so it can be run on mains pressure.

Glycol is used for both engine cooling systems and solar panels. It helps prevent the water from becoming a vapor at lower pressures. This allows the use of a lower pressure cooling (or heating) system. The stuff also has additives to help prevent rust as well. It is toxic, however. It has a sweet taste, making it particularly dangerous around kids and cats.
duncan61 wrote:
The remote heat source is piped in to the panel system and a small stainless cistern is fitted on top of the tank so the glycol to the fire is fed of a low pressure system that is open to atmosphere.If you fit the factory wet back and have the solar unit directly above it works very well.I am sure this is called convection

Yes. This is called convection, or convective heating.
duncan61 wrote:
if there is the slightest dip in the flow pipe it will not work.

It actually did, but not the way you want it to work. Convective heat is responsible for the vapor lock that stopped your system from doing what you want it to do. Liquids are not compressible, while gases are. Your flow depends on this incompressibility of liquid water. It's the same thing that makes a siphon work. Once a vapor forms, it compresses somewhat, blocking the flow of water. It will stay that way until conductive heat cools the pipe interior down sufficiently for that vapor lock to release.
duncan61 wrote:
The return pipe can be a bit out but it all works very well if the pipes are vertical

Yes. Convective heating is essentially vertical in nature. If contained in piping, that works best.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
04-08-2020 23:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
duncan61 wrote:
I am not getting in a pissing contest

No need. Nobody wins in a pissing contest.
duncan61 wrote:
I am just going like I always do of the reality that I know

It's what we all do.
duncan61 wrote:
and that is if you heat water or air it rises.

Absolutely correct. Convective heating can take place in any fluid. Both water and air are fluids.
duncan61 wrote:
I have my own theory that there is no such thing as wind and instead the hot air rises as the day gets warmer and sucks cold air of the ocean which is why where I live in summer we get easterlies in the mornings that fade of about 1100 am then it is still for an hour then the southerly howls in.

Your theory is correct. Wind is caused by localized convection in one place, and air rushing in to replace it. Since the Earth is heated unevenly by the Sun, there is always some wind somewhere.
duncan61 wrote:
I get your definition of heat its like a bag of Kilograms

Not really. Heat is flow. Like a current in a river is flow. Heat is not thermal energy, any more than the flow of a river is not the water itself. Heat has no weight and is not contained in a bag. Heat can occur anywhere. Inside a pipe, in the open atmosphere, or in an iron rod with one end in the fire and the other in your hand.
duncan61 wrote:
or people think octane is a magic juice that makes your car go fast when it is a measurement.

Heh. I've run into this countless times. High octane is used for engines that have higher compression, and is thus associated with 'hot cars'. The purpose of the additional octane is to make the gasoline burn less well, not better. Higher compression engines heat the gas in the cylinders on the compression stroke, and by quite a lot. Almost enough to ignite it (it DOES ignite it in a diesel engine). Just a tiny spark is all you need to ignite it. If a gasoline engine ignites the fuel too early due to compression, you get a knock or 'ping', that is gasoline exploding, rather than pushing, on the piston. Hammering the piston like this is like the difference between stomping on a bike pedal and pushing on a bike pedal. Hammering a piston like this can break stuff.

So higher octane burns more slowly, helping to prevent that knocking caused by high compression in the engine. Fortunately, most engines today can run on the good stuff. The 87 or even 80 octane gasoline. The good stuff is cheaper too.


duncan61 wrote:
Dont yell at me or I will start to cry

Don't cry.

Climate forums are political by nature, since the Church of Global Warming is trying to become the state religion. Politics can get into some pretty ugly conversations fairly often. It's the nature of the beast.

It is far better to understand the underlying physics of what you do, and what is related to our weather. Weather can be an amazing study, consider that just a little heat, and a little moisture, is all it takes to turn a nice day into a hurricane or violent thunderstorm. It's what provides a natural distillation system for our ocean water into fresh water that all of us use.

Think about that next time you are at the beach, looking out over that ocean or those puffy white clouds in the sky.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
04-08-2020 23:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
IBdaMann wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
ITN wrote Heat does not rise.
Say what now.Heat rises brother.Please explain mantra boy

Whenever anyone says "Heat rises" I ask him to demonstrate it by taking a searing hot frying pan and setting it on top of his head. Since heat rises, this shouldn't be a problem, yes?

Heat is not thermal energy. Heat is a flow of thermal energy, from some matter to other matter, regardless of direction. Current is neither water nor electrons but is a flow of water or electrons.

You say warm air rises, however the truth is that lighter air rises and heavier air sinks. If you increase the temperature of some air, it expands and becomes lighter, and thus "rises" while the now colder air above it, at no fault of its own, becomes heavier relatively and "sinks."

All of this presumes gravity, of course, to pull the heavier air downward. This is why matches don't continue to burn in zero gravity. Oxygen is required for combustion and the normal process has fire consuming oxygen, heating the air around it which "rises" allowing more oxygen to "sink" in to take its place and the fire is able to keep burning. In a zero-gravity orbit, for example, a lit candle would quickly consume the oxygen around it and extinguish. There is no "rising" for the heated air to do and thus no oxygen coming in as replacement.

The "light air rises" falls under fluid dynamics and is addressed under the topic of buoyancy. It's the same reason a volleyball floats in water but an anchor sinks.

Oh, ... don't try putting a searing frying pan on your head. Leave that to the professionals.

.

More accurately said. Thank you.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
04-08-2020 23:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7324)
Into the Night wrote: You can see a list of the mantras and their meanings here.

You know, it's been a while since I looked at the list. Man, it's extensive. It seems to be growing like a cold-blooded beast. When the day comes that machines take over, your mantra list will be an arch-duke somewhere.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-08-2020 00:36
James___
★★★★★
(2996)
IBdaMann wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
ITN wrote Heat does not rise.
Say what now.Heat rises brother.Please explain mantra boy

Whenever anyone says "Heat rises" I ask him to demonstrate it by taking a searing hot frying pan and setting it on top of his head. Since heat rises, this shouldn't be a problem, yes?




So you're comparing conduction to what? Talk about moving the bloody blooming goal posts. Are they even on the field?
You just showed that you, ITN and anyone who supports you is THAT ignorant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDvQ77JP8nw
05-08-2020 02:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7324)
James___ wrote:So you're comparing conduction to what? Talk about moving the bloody blooming goal posts. Are they even on the field?
You just showed that you, ITN and anyone who supports you is THAT ignorant.

I think you missed the point. The good news is that you get unlimited attempts to go back, reread and to actually get the point that was made.

Go get'em Tiger!

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-08-2020 02:54
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2209)
duncan61 wrote:
ITN wrote Heat does not rise. Cold is the relative absence of thermal energy, not the opposite of heat. Mantra 10f.

Say what now.Heat rises brother.Please explain mantra boy


Covid-19 is a cold...
05-08-2020 03:06
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(467)
Nice one Harvey.Your all individuals but I am not.Thanks team after 40 years of plumbing I feel I have a better handle on how it works.As usual James has confused the crap out of me.
05-08-2020 03:08
James___
★★★★★
(2996)
HarveyH55 wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
ITN wrote Heat does not rise. Cold is the relative absence of thermal energy, not the opposite of heat. Mantra 10f.

Say what now.Heat rises brother.Please explain mantra boy


Covid-19 is a cold...



And RuPaul is a man. Your point is?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFwP2huyNzg

and is not https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8KPZAC4rAc
Attached image:


Edited on 05-08-2020 03:10
05-08-2020 05:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
HarveyH55 wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
ITN wrote Heat does not rise. Cold is the relative absence of thermal energy, not the opposite of heat. Mantra 10f.

Say what now.Heat rises brother.Please explain mantra boy


Covid-19 is a cold...

No, it's related to the SARS virus series. The cold is the rhinovirus series.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
05-08-2020 10:55
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2209)
Rhinovirus is a family, like coronavirus is a family. A cold is a collection of symptoms. There are 6-7 families of viruses, that produce cold symptoms. There are two other coronavirus strains, associated with cold symptoms. For the vast majority of the people infected, it's a mild, upper respiratory infection. Just doesn't rise to the severity of anything else.
05-08-2020 13:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Rhinovirus is a family, like coronavirus is a family. A cold is a collection of symptoms. There are 6-7 families of viruses, that produce cold symptoms. There are two other coronavirus strains, associated with cold symptoms. For the vast majority of the people infected, it's a mild, upper respiratory infection. Just doesn't rise to the severity of anything else.

At least for Covid19, that is true. None of them are a cold. Both the WHO and the CDC typically called these a flu. Both agencies seem to making an exception in this case, calling Covid19 The Plague.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
05-08-2020 14:21
James___
★★★★★
(2996)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Rhinovirus is a family, like coronavirus is a family. A cold is a collection of symptoms. There are 6-7 families of viruses, that produce cold symptoms. There are two other coronavirus strains, associated with cold symptoms. For the vast majority of the people infected, it's a mild, upper respiratory infection. Just doesn't rise to the severity of anything else.

At least for Covid19, that is true. None of them are a cold. Both the WHO and the CDC typically called these a flu. Both agencies seem to making an exception in this case, calling Covid19 The Plague.



Covid 19 "is".
05-08-2020 20:08
Pete Rogers
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
IBdaMann. The open mind will accept what is proposed as new information in good faith and consider it on its merits.
The closed mind is pre-disposed and will not do this – it is invested in the predisposition so that its prestige is involved. Its top priority is to avoid loss of prestige before it is to find the truth, which is why it is generally antagonistic.
The Salesman is closed-minded about the merits of his product and will not consider that others are better and the Clergyman will not look at atheistic arguments on their merits - he cannot afford to.
That you think open-mindedness is characteristic of Salesmen and the Clergy puzzles me.
Science can only be successfully undertaken by the open-minded.
I have no problem with anyone expressing doubts. I assess what they tell me impartially and either endorse or reject it strictly in accordance with the rules of reason.
First I will take your point 1.
You say "There is no such thing as the GE" but provide no reason for saying so – it is just a bald statement. I am able to provide an explanation for why I do not accept it; which is that there are known to be gases which are not transparent to all IR; and the reflection, deflection and absorption of the measure of IR affected is the mechanism of the GE. The matter in dispute is not whether this happens, but whether it is a thermally potent phenomenon. IPCC say it is and I say it is not. There is my answer and my explanation in detail again. By all means feel free to come back if you believe you can falsify the particulars of what I have just said and I will think again, but further decrees will not be accepted, only explanations.
Perhaps I can clear up a further misunderstanding. The force of gravity – being permanent – causes all inflow of heat into the base of the compressed atmosphere to be concentrated so that the temperature increases. It is a fluid process whereby gravity compressing a continuous heat inflow causes continuous enhancement which transfers back to the Earth's surface continually causing IR emission to increase until the system is brought into equilibrium at the newly enhanced temperature. All we experience is the equilibrium position and this heightening of temperature is known as the ATE.
I am pleased now to deal with your point 2. If you see errors in my counter argument put here I will look impartially at your objections and either thank you for correcting me or, if they are not adequate, tell you exactly why they aren't, but bald statements will not be considered.
The Second Law requires that heat flows from the warmer to the cooler body so what I have put to you follows it precisely. It is necessary to look at the net overall position whereby of course you will get day night fluctuations but the net overall result accounts for that.
Anyone who says that his belief is not opinion, but knowledge, must go through the same epistemological process to show it. A full explanation must be given so that it can be examined open-mindedly and only when it passes that examination can it be thought of as fact. Nobody should accept any argument of mine unless it conforms to epistemology, which is why I give full explanations and don't leave what I have to say at bald assertion.
I have said the above in the interest of "Scientific Enquiry" (your quotation marks) having dealt with 1., 2. and Occams Razor en passant.
You refer to Holmes, Nikolov and Zeller as "high priests of his faith" whereas I do not run on faith, but epistemology. I can't see upon what facts this statement rests. Either withdraw it as a matter of integrity or give reasons in justification.
There is such a thing as fact so I settle for that for the purpose of adoption rather than switching to navel-gazing about the meaning of meaning and the meaning of truth. Personally I would say that which can be shown to be fact should stand for truth until it is overtaken, how about you?
If you argue that there is no such thing as truth we must wonder what you would base your system of justice on.
That accepted science will eventually be overtaken by a superior finding certainly can't be ruled out, but there seems little sense in arrogating the certainty that it is not the case whilst it remains indefinitely serviceable if employed as though true. Failure to recognise that is one of the bases of Religion – a hopeless case of misunderstanding it seems to me.
I was unaware that you had asked me to explain the concept of "negative work" so assuming I missed the request I can only apologise for that, but I think it is mischievous of you to declare that I "refused to explain" unless you can show it. After all it is a very well-known phenomenon.
When a gas body expands it is doing work and that work dissipates energy and the temperature falls. When a body of gas is compressed by Gravity instead then it is performing negative work which is simply the reverse; energy accumulates accordingly and the temperature rises. Gas; and gas alone: can convert the Force of Gravity into heat-energy leading to temperature rise in this way. If you disagree with this please do so in terms of the particulars being put to you here.
Here is a definition from Boston University Physics faculty Work can be either positive or negative: if the force has a component in the same direction as the displacement of the object, the force is doing positive work. If the force has a component in the direction opposite to the displacement, the force does negative work. 8 Oct 1999
Throwing terms around like "intentionally dishonest" does you no favours.
I rely on others expressing their doubts, but it must be cogently done - with proper explanation that is - and the person expressing the cogent doubt must similarly be prepared to look impartially at cogent rebuttal so that from this process the facts become concrete and can only through this process.
05-08-2020 23:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann. The open mind will accept what is proposed as new information in good faith and consider it on its merits.
The closed mind is pre-disposed and will not do this – it is invested in the predisposition so that its prestige is involved. Its top priority is to avoid loss of prestige before it is to find the truth, which is why it is generally antagonistic.

Your mind is closed. You have and continue to deny science. Your mind is closed by your religion.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The Salesman is closed-minded about the merits of his product and will not consider that others are better and the Clergyman will not look at atheistic arguments on their merits - he cannot afford to.
That you think open-mindedness is characteristic of Salesmen and the Clergy puzzles me.
Science can only be successfully undertaken by the open-minded.
I have no problem with anyone expressing doubts. I assess what they tell me impartially and either endorse or reject it strictly in accordance with the rules of reason.
First I will take your point 1.

It's already been explained to you. Repetitious Question Already Answered (RQAA).
Pete Rogers wrote:
You say "There is no such thing as the GE" but provide no reason for saying so – it is just a bald statement.

He gave the reasons. RQAA. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
I am able to provide an explanation for why I do not accept it; which is that there are known to be gases which are not transparent to all IR; and the reflection, deflection and absorption of the measure of IR affected is the mechanism of the GE.

Absorption of IR emitted by Earth's surface does not warm the planet. You are still trying to deny the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The matter in dispute is not whether this happens, but whether it is a thermally potent phenomenon.

Define 'thermally potent phenomenon'. Is that like 'global warming'?
Pete Rogers wrote:
IPCC say it is and I say it is not.

The IPCC calls it 'global warming'. Still undefined.
Pete Rogers wrote:
There is my answer and my explanation in detail again. By all means feel free to come back if you believe you can falsify the particulars of what I have just said and I will think again, but further decrees will not be accepted, only explanations.

It has been explained. RQAA.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Perhaps I can clear up a further misunderstanding. The force of gravity – being permanent – causes all inflow of heat into the base of the compressed atmosphere to be concentrated so that the temperature increases.

Nope. Gravity is not energy. Static pressure does not increase temperature of a gas. You are denying the 1st law of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law. Mantras 20a1...20n.
Pete Rogers wrote:
It is a fluid process whereby gravity compressing a continuous heat inflow causes continuous enhancement which transfers back to the Earth's surface continually causing IR emission to increase until the system is brought into equilibrium at the newly enhanced temperature.

There is no sequence. Mantra 20b3.
Pete Rogers wrote:
All we experience is the equilibrium position and this heightening of temperature is known as the ATE.

No such thing. You can't create energy out of nothing. You can't increase the temperature of a gas using static pressure. Mantras 20a1...20n.
Pete Rogers wrote:
I am pleased now to deal with your point 2. If you see errors in my counter argument put here I will look impartially at your objections and either thank you for correcting me or, if they are not adequate, tell you exactly why they aren't, but bald statements will not be considered.

Already done. RQAA.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The Second Law requires that heat flows from the warmer to the cooler body so what I have put to you follows it precisely. It is necessary to look at the net overall position whereby of course you will get day night fluctuations but the net overall result accounts for that.

The atmosphere is colder than the surface. You cannot heat the warmer surface using a colder atmosphere. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the 1st law of thermodynamics as well as the ideal gas law. Mantras 20a2...20a1...20n.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Anyone who says that his belief is not opinion, but knowledge, must go through the same epistemological process to show it. A full explanation must be given so that it can be examined open-mindedly and only when it passes that examination can it be thought of as fact. Nobody should accept any argument of mine unless it conforms to epistemology, which is why I give full explanations and don't leave what I have to say at bald assertion.

It has already been explained to you. RQAA.
Pete Rogers wrote:
I have said the above in the interest of "Scientific Enquiry" (your quotation marks) having dealt with 1., 2. and Occams Razor en passant.

You are denying science. You are denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law. Occam's Razor is not science and is not a proof.
Pete Rogers wrote:
You refer to Holmes, Nikolov and Zeller as "high priests of his faith" whereas I do not run on faith, but epistemology. I can't see upon what facts this statement rests. Either withdraw it as a matter of integrity or give reasons in justification.

GLWT.
Pete Rogers wrote:
There is such a thing as fact

But you don't know what it means. 'Fact' does not mean 'proof' or 'Universal Truth'. A fact is an assumed predicate. Nothing about a fact is proof of it being True. They are used in English to shorten speech, so you don't have to declare your predicates with every argument. The very moment a fact is in dispute, it is no longer a fact. It becomes an argument.
Pete Rogers wrote:
so I settle for that for the purpose of adoption rather than switching to navel-gazing about the meaning of meaning and the meaning of truth.

Semantics fallacy. Now you have chosen to undefine 'truth'.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Personally I would say that which can be shown to be fact should stand for truth until it is overtaken, how about you?

You have undefined 'truth'. You cannot define 'fact' using an undefined word.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If you argue that there is no such thing as truth we must wonder what you would base your system of justice on.

YOU have argued there is no such thing as 'truth'. Inversion fallacy. Semantics fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
That accepted science will eventually be overtaken by a superior finding certainly can't be ruled out, but there seems little sense in arrogating the certainty that it is not the case whilst it remains indefinitely serviceable if employed as though true. Failure to recognise that is one of the bases of Religion – a hopeless case of misunderstanding it seems to me.

Science is not religion. Word salads are not religion. All religions are based on some initial circular argument. This is not a fallacy. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'. The circular argument is also known as the argument of faith. It is not possible to prove a circular argument as either True or False. Those who attempt to do so are making the circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.

It is also what YOU are doing. Define 'global warming'.
Pete Rogers wrote:
I was unaware that you had asked me to explain the concept of "negative work" so assuming I missed the request I can only apologise for that, but I think it is mischievous of you to declare that I "refused to explain" unless you can show it. After all it is a very well-known phenomenon.

Not a phenomenon.
Pete Rogers wrote:
When a gas body expands it is doing work and that work dissipates energy and the temperature falls. When a body of gas is compressed by Gravity instead then it is performing negative work which is simply the reverse; energy accumulates accordingly and the temperature rises. Gas; and gas alone: can convert the Force of Gravity into heat-energy leading to temperature rise in this way. If you disagree with this please do so in terms of the particulars being put to you here.

Static pressure does not increase the temperature of a gas. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law again.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Here is a definition from Boston University Physics faculty Work can be either positive or negative: if the force has a component in the same direction as the displacement of the object, the force is doing positive work. If the force has a component in the direction opposite to the displacement, the force does negative work. 8 Oct 1999

Semantics fallacy. False authority fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Throwing terms around like "intentionally dishonest" does you no favours.

You are being intentionally dishonest. You are lying. You have ignored what has been explained to you and keep asking the same questions (RQAA). You continue to deny science, specifically the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and the ideal gas law. You continue to lie about what has already been explained to you. You are being intentionally dishonest.
Pete Rogers wrote:
I rely on others expressing their doubts, but it must be cogently done - with proper explanation that is -

RQAA. Theories of science aren't doubts.
Pete Rogers wrote:
and the person expressing the cogent doubt must similarly be prepared to look impartially at cogent rebuttal

You refuse to do so, liar.
Pete Rogers wrote:
so that from this process the facts become concrete and can only through this process.

Facts are not concrete...ever. You deny the process you are touting. You are being intentionally dishonest.

No argument presented. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics. RQAA. Repetition. Semantics fallacies.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
06-08-2020 11:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7324)
Pete Rogers wrote: That you think open-mindedness is characteristic of Salesmen and the Clergy puzzles me.

Learn to read. I said that for the Salesman and Clergyman to succeed they need customers/congregations to have open minds, not that they themselves had open minds.

Pete Rogers wrote:Science can only be successfully undertaken by the open-minded.

Science can only advance where there is doubting and questioning. The scientific method can only be correctly applied by a doubter and a questioner, and science can only advance if the scientific method is correctly applied.

Pete Rogers wrote:I have no problem with anyone expressing doubts.

You have a problem with every single one of mine. You selectively filter them out. This is why you are no smarter today than when you first proposed your truly stupid religious dogma. It's almost as if you are taking pride in the extent to which you refuse to learning anything.

Pete Rogers wrote:I assess what they tell me impartially and either endorse or reject it strictly in accordance with the rules of reason.



Pete Rogers wrote:First I will take your point 1.

Ahhh, numerical order, a truly classic approach that always gets the job done.

Pete Rogers wrote: You say "There is no such thing as the GE" but provide no reason for saying so

Yes I did. Religions are not real. Religious dogma is not real ... and now your selective filtering is kicking in, these words are starting to fade ... and now this section of the screen looks blank. Done. It's like none of this was ever said.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... and the reflection, deflection and absorption of the measure of IR affected is the mechanism of the GE.

Nope ... not by any Greenhouse Effect that has ever been unambiguously defined ... because Greenhouse Effect is just a WACKY, unfalsifiable religious dogma that has never been unambiguously defined for that reason ... just like your Atmospheric Temperature Enhancement. It remains equally undefined unambiguously in any way that doesn't violate physics because it too is WACKY religious dogma. As predicted, your selective filtering is kicking in, these words are starting to fade ... and now this section of the screen looks blank. Done. It's like none of the above was ever said.

Pete Rogers wrote: The matter in dispute is not whether this happens,

Yes it is. The undefined is always presumed to not happen. Look up Occam's Razor.

Pete Rogers wrote: IPCC say ..

IPCC, Vatican, Citizen's Climate Lobby, Communist Party USA, ... no one cares what any of them have to say unless one is interested in religious dogma.

Pete Rogers wrote:By all means feel free to come back if you believe you can falsify the particulars of what I have just said

All religions are unfalsifiable, including yours. No one can show your religion to be false any more than anyone can show that Christianity is false. It's the nature of religions.

Pete Rogers wrote:Perhaps I can clear up a further misunderstanding. The force of gravity – being permanent – causes all inflow of heat into the base of the compressed atmosphere to be concentrated so that the temperature increases.

Again, you omit inclusion of where this provides increased cooling ... ooops, selective filtering just kicked in again ... this whole portion ... gone. Whew! That was close. It almost stuck. We dodged a bullet there.

Pete Rogers wrote: It is a fluid process whereby gravity compressing a continuous heat inflow causes continuous enhancement which transfers back to the Earth's surface continually causing IR emission to increase until the system is brought into equilibrium at the newly enhanced temperature. All we experience is the equilibrium position and this heightening of temperature is known as the ATE.

All of this is a classic Climate Change "feedback loop." Into the Night has been caught sleeping on the job when he should have been the emergency first responder explaining the problematic runaway effects of perpetual motion machines. We're going to have to ding him on that one.

Either your ATE keeps generating more and more energy until the earth goes up in flames in short order ... or it does nothing. Would you care to guess which one is correct?

Pete Rogers wrote:I am pleased now to deal with your point 2.

Yessssss!

Pete Rogers wrote: I will look impartially at your objections and either thank you for correcting me or, if they are not adequate, tell you exactly why they aren't, but bald statements will not be considered.

Please don't be offended but I don't consider you up to the level necesssary to critique my work. But thank you for the offer. It was very thoughtful.

Pete Rogers wrote:The Second Law requires that heat flows from the warmer to the cooler body

... that thermal energy flows from matter of higher temperature to matter of lower temperature.

The more you rely on the word "heat" the more you advertise that you don't know what you are talking about. Seriously, you might find it more convenient to rent a billboard "I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!"

Pete Rogers wrote: Anyone who says that his belief is not opinion, but knowledge, must go through the same epistemological process to show it.

You should have been all over tmiddles then, like flies on schitt. I'm going to hold you to this.


Pete Rogers wrote: You refer to Holmes, Nikolov and Zeller as "high priests of his faith" whereas I do not run on faith, but epistemology.

You operate on religious dogma. You deny science outright. Oops, selective filtering again ... gone.

Pete Rogers wrote: Personally I would say that which can be shown to be fact should stand for truth

"Showing something to be fact" means to convince all parties participating in the discussion to accept it as TRUE ... which means everyone will accept it as TRUE. Yes?

Pete Rogers wrote:If you argue that there is no such thing as truth we must wonder what you would base your system of justice on.

Bad news. It has been mathematically proven that the truth cannot be known. Every logical system is incomplete ... and that includes systems with infinite predicates. Our finite brains can only handle finite systems. We can't know the truth, even presuming it exists. Doesn't that just make your Wheaties go soggy?

Pete Rogers wrote:That accepted science will eventually be overtaken by a superior finding certainly can't be ruled out,

There is no such thing as "accepted science." Nor is there "mainstream science," "conventional science" or even "scientific consensus." There is only "science" whether any given individual accepts it or not.


Pete Rogers wrote: When a gas body expands it is doing work and that work dissipates energy and the temperature falls.

Stop. Now you need to explain what you believe you mean by "dissipates energy." Are you implying a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics because the energy is destroyed into nothing, thus reducing the temperature? ... or are you saying that the thermal energy merely flows out of it, thus increasing the temperature of other matter? Please be specific.

Pete Rogers wrote: When a body of gas is compressed by Gravity instead then it is performing negative work which is simply the reverse; energy accumulates accordingly and the temperature rises.

The only way for energy to "accumulate" in this scenario is for energy to be created out of nothing and then "accumulate." Otherwise you make no sense. The same fixed quantity of energy cannot be "accumulating."

So your dogma assumes that gravity is a magical force that magically creates energy out of nothing and that ATE is the accumulation of the created energy ... whereas "negative work" is the destruction of energy into nothing that lowers temperature. Got it.

Violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics all around.

Pete Rogers wrote:Gas; and gas alone: can convert the Force of Gravity into heat-energy leading to temperature rise in this way.

I figured as much.

I have bad news for you. This is the exact same problem with Greenhouse Effect, i.e. the creation of energy out of nothing in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Your ATE is GE in disguise. There's no substantive difference between them.

Pete Rogers wrote: Work can be either positive or negative: if the force has a component in the same direction as the displacement of the object, the force is doing positive work. If the force has a component in the direction opposite to the displacement, the force does negative work.

This is what I asked you the first time I asked you about this. This is subtracting work from other work.

Pete Rogers wrote: Throwing terms around like "intentionally dishonest" does you no favours.

I'll be sure to keep that in mind when I start asking for favors. I'm sorry, "favours."

Your intentional dishonesty occurs when you decide to disregard corrections to your errors as if they were never mentioned. You decide to do it. It is intentional. Don't pretend to tell me that "intentional" and "dishonesty" somehow mean other things. And tell your country to drop the unnecessary "u" because you don't do yourselves any "favours" by cluttering up the page.

Pete Rogers wrote: I rely on others expressing their doubts, but it must be cogently done

Nope. Any doubter gets to express his doubts any flipping way he wants to express them ... and you will like it ... or else you will simply be dismissed.

At the moment I have simply dismissed your WACKY religious dogma that egregiously violates the first law of thermodynamics. I'll be happy to consider future revisions but I don't need to wait for your critique of my critique. In fact, you can save yourself some time and just fuggetaboutit.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 2 of 4<1234>





Join the debate Global warming is not anthropogenic:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Liberals have mental disease caused by anthropogenic chemicals103-02-2017 20:30
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact